Fact-check findings

The reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.

1. #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Indian Regulatory and Enforcement Actions

   “the Singapore High Court declined to sanction it on 16 June [2025]”

   reviewerSingapore High Court declined to sanction the first scheme on 16 June 2025The page's own cited CryptoTimes article is dated 5 June 2025 and Medianama reports the announcement on 4 June, before the stated 16 June. The timeline's 2025-06 month-level entry is consistent with the correct date.
   Proposed correction (not yet applied)

   the Singapore High Court declined to sanction it, as announced by WazirX on 4 June 2025
   citedwww.cryptotimes.io/2025/06/05/singapore-…orium-last-hope/

No source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.

1. #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Indian Regulatory and Enforcement Actions

   “In June 2021, the ED issued a show-cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) to Zanmai Labs and directors Nischal Shetty and Sameer Hanuman Mhatre over cryptocurrency transactions worth approximately Rs 2,790.74 crore”

   reviewerED FEMA show-cause notice, June 2021, Rs 2,790.74 crore; Rs 64.67 crore freeze August 2022Not independently fetched in this review (time-boxed); not scored. Figures plausible and consistent with widely reported coverage but not verified here.
   citedwww.theblock.co/post/108178/india-law-en…ange-wazirx-fema
2. #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Binance Ownership Dispute

   “In 2022, Binance stated publicly that the acquisition never closed and that it had never held equity in Zanmai Labs”

   reviewerBinance 2022 statement that it never held equity in Zanmai LabsNot fetched in this pass; the dispute itself is corroborated by the Supreme Court coverage (Shetty quote on Binance non-ownership) and the Wikipedia/Decrypt titles. Not scored.
   citedtechcrunch.com/2022/08/05/binance-says-i…on-announcement/

The cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.

1. #8[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary

   “was dismissed in April 2025 on jurisdictional grounds, leaving most liability questions unresolved”

   reviewerSummary says the Supreme Court petition sought a probe of WazirX's founder and was dismissed on jurisdictional groundsReports describe the reasoning as absence of a crypto regulatory framework and the Court not being the relevant authority, which is only loosely 'jurisdictional'. Body text is more precise.
   citedwww.tronweekly.com/wazirx-victims-dead-end/

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

1. #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: July 2024 Hack — Incident and Government Attribution to North Korea

   “On 18 July 2024, WazirX disclosed that approximately $234.9 million in digital assets had been drained from a multisig wallet operated under a custody arrangement with third-party provider Liminal Custody”

   reviewerHack of about $234.9M disclosed 18 July 2024, trading and withdrawals suspendedDate and amount match.
   citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_WazirX_hack
2. #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: July 2024 Hack — Incident and Government Attribution to North Korea

   “On 14 January 2025, the United States, Japan and South Korea issued a joint statement formally attributing the WazirX theft”

   reviewerUS, Japan and South Korea jointly attributed the theft to North Korea on 14 January 2025Dates in cited URLs are consistent. Primary article text not directly read.
   citedtechcrunch.com/2025/01/14/north-korea-st…ake-job-seekers/
3. #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Attribution Dispute: WazirX vs. Liminal Custody

   “according to a report dated 14 August 2024, the review concluded the attack originated from Liminal Custody's systems rather than WazirX's own IT environment”

   reviewerMandiant report dated 14 August 2024 attributed origin to Liminal CustodySupported by Wikipedia only among what I read; Business Standard/CoinDesk not independently fetched. The CoinDesk piece URL dated 14 Aug 2024 is about ending the Liminal relationship.
   citeden.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_WazirX_hack
4. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Indian Regulatory and Enforcement Actions

   “on 13 October 2025 the High Court of Singapore sanctioned the scheme with modifications”

   reviewerSingapore court sanctioned the amended scheme on 13 October 2025 after revote with 95.7% by number and 94.6% by valueMatches search results also reporting August 2025 revote and 13 Oct approval.
   citedwww.coindesk.com/markets/2025/10/13/wazi…30m-hack-victims
5. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Indian Regulatory and Enforcement Actions

   “WazirX restarted trading and withdrawal operations on 24 October 2025, more than fifteen months after the hack froze user funds.”

   reviewerWazirX restarted operations 24 October 202518 Jul 2024 to 24 Oct 2025 is about 15 months and 6 days; consistent.
   citedwww.unlock-bc.com/en/wazirx-relaunches-a…okens-in-10-days
6. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Indian Regulatory and Enforcement Actions

   “was dismissed on 16 April 2025, with the bench holding that cryptocurrency regulation was a matter for government policy rather than the courts”

   reviewerSupreme Court of India dismissed petition by 54 victims on 16 April 2025, advising approach to regulatorsCore facts corroborated via search snippets. Summary's phrase 'on jurisdictional grounds' is looser than 'regulation is a policy matter' but is a characterization, not a factual error.
   citedwww.tronweekly.com/wazirx-victims-dead-end/